My partner and I had to rely on a crisis loan for a short while, this was when we were trying to sort out our claim and the Jobcentre took 3 months to sort out our payments. Until the jobcentre sorted that out, the council wouldn’t sort out housing or council tax benefit. So that was 3 months rent needing paying, 3 months of electricity and gas and 3 months food and travel expenses. We were eventually allowed a crisis loan, for a two week period we were awarded £20. Crisis loans don’t cover utilities bills unless you have a pre payment meter, they don’t cover rent and they don’t cover council tax.People are not automatically awarded 75% of the benefit rate anyway, unless they can prove they need it for prepayment meters aswell as food. Anyway, my main point of this was, sure restrict crisis loans for people who’s benefits are being paid to 3X a year, but if jobcentre and council bureaucracy leaves people without any income whatsoever, then it isn’t exactly fecklessness that means the claimants need to rely on crisis loans!

‘Sorry, there’s no money left’

Try again.

And before anyone says it, no, we shouldn’t have bailed out the banks and, no, we shouldn’t be subsidising bankers profits with easy money. But that is a tough mess to unpick right at this moment and in the meantime, we are fresh out of cash.

Too much cash is very bad for EVERYONE if we end up bankrupting ourselves.

If money can harm people, then clearly the more money they have, the more potential for harm. Take for example all these rich Tory MPs who’ve inherited millions and therefore have little conception of what life is like for normal people. Their money have harmed them, and society would be doing them a favour if their inherited wealth was taxed at 100%.

Its impossible to over stress what a misinformed buffoon Smith is but just for a bit of fun, every time I see a politician making that sort of gesture with his hands it always makes me think of this Private Eye cover http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=182

@ 2 Nick

“Sorry, there’s no money left”

Patently untrue. I have some here in my wallet, and rather more in my bank account. As does nearly everyone. Some people have millions of pounds!

So, in fact: there’s absolutely loads of money about. And cliches aren’t arguments.

“In fact, having extra money hurts the poor so much, if we give too much to them, it will kill them!”

“Patently untrue. I have some here in my wallet, and rather more in my bank account. As does nearly everyone. Some people have millions of pounds!”

That is exactly how this crisis was allowed to happen. People assuming that a number in an account is money that is actually there: http://www.cobdencentre.org/2010/06/public-attitudes-to-banking/

It isn’t. And the value of the money you are holding right now in your wallet is heavily predicated on you not attempting to withdraw too much from the bank.

“Now when Duncan Smith talks about how giving people more money is counter productive, what he is thinking about is a drug addict who just uses the money to buy drugs, a feckless layabout who spends the money on booze and a Sky Sports subscription”

…and he’s wrong there, too, of course.

Someone addicted to drugs is probably going to go to great lengths to obtain more drugs. We could not give them any money, in which case they might turn to crime to get more, and cost us money anyway in the long term, or we could give them money, and support them with their addiction in other ways, which would save money in the long term (and possibly in the short term, too).

People – especially in government – do like to try to make this distinction between the “deserving poor” and “undeserving poor”, and then conveniently define as many people as possible into the “undeserving” group.

Talking about Private Eye covers; I loved this one:
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=1273

@2 I suppose we could always go back to barter and trade…

I can only guess that it’s some kind of cunning satire on the part of LibCon to have an ad for ‘Kwik Cash’ appear under this article?

IDS kicking the poor while they’re down yet again. Isn’t this the man who wants to abolish the social fund. No more interest free loans. Its hard enough already to get a crisis loan. I once begged, cried and pleaded on the phone for just £20 when my middle child was 2 months old. We were waiting for the 1st JSA payment and had absolutely nothing. He was in his last nappy and was due a feed with no baby milk or money in sight. I was refused the loan because JSA would be paid in 2 days. What did they expect me to do? Produce a note out of my a*se? If the tighten the rules up anymore we will be turning up to job centres having to prove we own nothing and have nothing, didn’t that happen in America already?

IDS visitied ONE estate, spoke to ONE person on benefits and thinks we are all the same. He does know that you don’t have to live in a council property to be unemployed or poor doesn’t he???

The humiliation of having to beg to a complete stranger for just enough to feed your children should be enough. How dare a millionaire tell me that more money wont stop me being poor. How dumb does he think we are?

Sorry, he just makes me so angry.

@ 3

Take for example all these rich Tory MPs who’ve inherited millions and therefore have little conception of what life is like for normal people. Their money have harmed them, and society would be doing them a favour if their inherited wealth was taxed at 100%.

Actually, I agree.

Giving people money that is undeserved is always damaging to them.

Nick

‘Sorry, there’s no money left’

Better hope this actually saves money then. My guess is that measures like this will end up costing us a fortune, because they’ll mean we end up having to deal with the sort of expensive ‘crises’ these loans are supposed to avert – homelessness or acute health problems, say.

This bankruptcy thing. There are some business people who use it as part of their business model and seem to do OK.

I suppose that’s a fatuous metaphor, a bit like comparing domestic finances with national economies.

Of course, we’re not going to go bust, so the suggestion that the sacrifices born by the least well-off are justified by some sort of emergency is just cruel nonsense.

@ 7 Nick

“That is exactly how this crisis was allowed to happen. People assuming that a number in an account is money that is actually there.

It isn’t. And the value of the money you are holding right now in your wallet is heavily predicated on you not attempting to withdraw too much from the bank.”

You’re essentially off-topic. The fact that the system assumes that not everyone will try to access all their funds at the same time does not mean that “there’s no money left”.

Saying “there’s no money left” is a lazy cliche: what you’re actually saying is “I don’t think the state should pay for that”, but you’re expressing it in a way that your opinion is a solid truth. Doesn’t work.

@ 8 cim

“People – especially in government – do like to try to make this distinction between the “deserving poor” and “undeserving poor”, and then conveniently define as many people as possible into the “undeserving” group.”

I go so far as to say it’s more like: “of course there are the deserving poor and undeserving poor. Now let’s forget that I said that and assume that everyone represented in the following statistics count as the undeserving.”

It’s the same sort of logic that gives you:

1) X people in Britain are on benefits.
2) This guy who receives benefits is a lazy fraudster.
3) Ergo…

You can’t apply for a crisis loan during the first two weeks of a suspension. You can’t apply for hardship either, unless you’ve got young children.

On the plus side its a boon for our loan shark industry.

I wonder if IDS will be appearing on Comic Relief to explain why giving money causes more harm than good?

Conservative attacks Labour for being fixated on giving people money without realising that you simultaneously need to counter the reasons why they’re in poverty in the first place. Labour supporter responds that the Conservatives aren’t giving the poor enough money, thus neatly proving the Conservative’s point about Labour.

God forbid you should listen to what your opponents are actually saying.

@20 Er, wouldn’t the point only be proved if the Tories were actually doing something about why people are in poverty first? Because it just sounds like they’ve highlighted a problem and are now industriously trying to make it worse.

Before anyone gets carried away with nostalgia for the Good Old Days remember the current rules were brought in by New Labour. Things *may* get worse but if you currently find yourself in hock to gangsters thats a legacy of the last government.

“Conservative attacks Labour for being fixated on giving people money without realising that you simultaneously need to counter the reasons why they’re in poverty in the first place.”

This line of argument is only valid in Straw Man World. In the real world, Labour was at least as focused as IDS on other causes of poverty, hence, for example the work which reduced teenage preganancy to its lowest level in generations, the introduction of Sure Start, projects to reduce addiction and almost endless other examples.

That’s spot on shatterface, this is a consequence of new labour failing to take on the tabloids on welfare, and leaving an illogical system that does need reform in the hands of people who don’t believe in it. Its like putting a quaker in charge of a boxing club.

Don, what I think he was getting at was that new labour introduced far more conditionality into the system, and far more punitive measures that treated claimants as a problem. This then left the door open for the tories to go further.

@ 21 Cylux

“Er, wouldn’t the point only be proved if the Tories were actually doing something about why people are in poverty first? Because it just sounds like they’ve highlighted a problem and are now industriously trying to make it worse.”

Exactly. It appears the tactic is to blame Labour for joint failings (although Don points out these may be more Tory failings than Labour failings anyway) while deliberately creating even more failings.

In any case, “what makes people poor” is a complex, long-term issue that can go back to before the birth of the individuals in question. So cutting their benefits only makes sense decades after the root problems have been addressed.

If money causes more harm than good, why do the Tories love it so much and try and hang on to it at every opportunity, even if it means avoiding paying tax ?

Why are right-wingers such sadists?

Why do right-wingers enjoy causing human misery so
much?

” Sometimes the poor are praised for being thrifty. But to recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less. For a town and country laborer to practice thrift would be absolutely immoral. Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a badly fed animal. He should decline to live like that, and should either steal or go on the rates, which is considered by many to be a form of stealing”

– Oscar Wilde (extract from the soul of man under socialism – 1891)

@ 29

Good quote. I didn’t know Wilde was so sympathetic to socialist ideas.

@ 28: Why do lefties enjoy horribly torturing people to death?

We can all come up with sad, tragic and unhelpful stuff. If you removed your head from it’s current position you might realise that while some on the right hate the poor, (just as some on the left would like to see the rich ‘re-educated’), these people are very few and far between.

The majority on both sides want largely the same thing but happen to disagree about the best way to achieve this.

@ 28 Antitory

To back Falco up, but coming from the left:

“Why are right-wingers such sadists?

Why do right-wingers enjoy causing human misery so
much?”

They’re not and they don’t. In some cases, they may not care about human misery, but that’s not the same thing as sadism. In others, they probably (rightly or wrongly) believe that the option they support is actually the better option, or that preventing misery has too high a cost in terms of rights or practicality (for an example of why this might be the case, imagine the practical downsides, and rights violations, that might result from outlawing cars, even though this would prevent a lot of deaths and injuries).

I know it’s tempting, but if you just assume that your opponents think the way they do because they’re bastards, you’re not really going to get anywhere.

Im starting to believe that Iain Duncan Smith is actually enjoying inflicting misery upon the sick, disabled, vulnerable and poorest in society.

Falco @ 31

We can all come up with sad, tragic and unhelpful stuff.

That is bollocks. You can go onto any Tory/Right Wing blog, comments section on any Tory Newspaper web site and it will be littered by bile soaked crap about the poor, the unemployed, the disabled and every other hate group that the ‘Right’ can think off. Try it. Go onto an yof the top twenty Right of Centre/Right Wing blog and look at the comments regarding almost anything and see how far you get without abuse being hurled at the least fortunate in our society. Nor is it few and far between either. For an ideology that is built around and largely funded by the wealthy, they seem to talk about little else than how to hurt the poorest members of our society.

To be brutally frank, you rarely see the same amount of abuse hurled at people merely because people are ‘rich’ here or any other Left Wing Party. You may get comments about the number of millionaires in the cabinet, but no way is abuse being hurled in their direction and if you do, it WILL be few and far between.

The majority on both sides want largely the same thing but happen to disagree about the best way to achieve this

Again, that is bollocks. I doubt many people on the Left share a vision of how society should progress with the likes of Pagar or Tim Worsall.

I have never really tried to form a picture of what Utopia would look like to me, but, if pushed Iain Banks’ ‘Culture’ novels, would be close to the mark. Escapist nonsense, of course, but a nice image. Coming closer to reality, if I did manage to build a society that I felt comfortable in, I think someone like Pagar would find it absolutely repugnant. Having said that, of course, if Pagar gets his way, then I would equally find his World a fucking nightmare, as well. Nothing wrong in that, I suppose, but no way do I want the same thing as the Right, and nor do I think the majority here want that either.

@31

The majority on both sides want largely the same thing but happen to disagree about the best way to achieve this.

That’s just not true any more I’m afraid, maybe fifty years ago but not now.

At first I thought “Delivering the Keith Joseph Memorial lecture” was a euphemistic joke on the part of the writer of this post, but now I see it really is why IDS made his speech. IDS’s words are indeed a fitting memorial to the old monetarist, eugenicist, right-wing maniac, who hated the poor so much he wanted to stop them breeding, and said as much. IDS is a little more mealy-mouthed, but the sentiments are the same.

The rich need more cash of course, to incentivise them

Chaise @ 32

I think it is increasingly difficult to come up with a viable alternative to that proposition the more you read what they write.

We either have to assume that these people are complete fuckwits to continually come up with stuff that is so monumentally wrong headed as to make ‘Homer’ (Simpson) look like Plato, every week or you have to accept that they are driven by a completely different criteria.

Why is it that EVERY solution to EVERY problem is the same? Cut wages, terms and conditions of the poorest in society? You name it the Tory answer is ‘lower wages’, ‘lower spending’, ‘lower benefits’ cut the taxes that hurt the rich, raise taxes that hurt the poor.

Who else, but a Tory would advocate that a good way to get people back into work would be to provide the private sector with an unlimited supply of ‘free labour’? Who sat down and wrote the problem down on a bit of paper and thought of a solution that was guaranteed to fail. Who did the analysis on that nugget? These people are supposed to be zealots of the free market. In fact, these people worship the free market to the extent they make the most bigoted fundamentalist religious nutcase look like a committed Darwinist when it comes to the market. And yet these market worshipping people have all failed to to spot the flaw in that ‘solution’. If the private sector have work that needs done, they will hire people to do it, if you give them labour for free they will not create the jobs they unemployed are being ‘trained’ for.

This ‘solution’ was basically built around the answer ‘make them work for their dole money’ then went in search of the question.

How can everyone in a Political Party get ‘Global Warming’ wrong? How can every scientist within the field come up with ‘A’ and yet the ‘Right’ and big business get the answer ‘B’? Surely the law of averages would suggest that half would pick ‘A’ and the other half pick ‘B’, but for some reason the ven diagram for Tories and AGW deniers almost completely overlap? It overlaps because the solution goes against the ideology. So who refuses to believe science is more important than their ideology?

On so many issues, in so many ways they have answers then they look for the question to fit with what they would like to see happen. The want to kill the minimum wage and look for the excuse. They want to kill the NHS and look for the system to fail.

Jim

I have to say that I could not agree more. Compassionate Conservatism is dead (if it ever existed) on the evidence of the commenters on various blogs. Here included.

@ Jim 34: “To be brutally frank, you rarely see the same amount of abuse hurled at people merely because people are ‘rich’ here or any other Left Wing Party.”

Except from you ‘ey Jim! “Are you so much a prick that you cannot even, just once in your pathetic life just concede that this is merely all about the fact that you have no wish to change your lifestyle to save the lives of millions of our fellow humans?”

(Taken from the last time you threw a wobbly, although I have to admit you were politeness itself compared to that charming fellow BlueRock).

I’m also a fan of the Culture series and the most notable thing about it is that it is a post – scarcity society. As you say, we are a long way from that but trying to reach it, or at least get closer to it, is hardly an evil goal. That level of wealth, given the great rise in real term income over the last 150 years, should be achievable in time and then many of the current problems we face will become irrelevant, (a chap can hope can’t he?).

Falco @ 40

Yes, and I stand by every word of that quote. That quote was aimed, fairly and squarely, at the type of evil bastards who deny AGW in order to maintain their own lifestyle, whislt condemning millions of others to alife of misery. These people are little more than scum in my book. I do not say nasty things about ‘the rich’ as you implied. I would not just abuse people for merely living in a strata of society at the bottom of the ladder.

The Tories on the otherhand do little else. Take away the sweeping statements and the nasty comments regarding the porest people in our society and you have little else.

Jim, you are vituperously unpleasant and have thoroughly disproven your own case. I hope you get everything you deserve.

19. Shatterface – “I wonder if IDS will be appearing on Comic Relief to explain why giving money causes more harm than good?”

I hope so. After all, all the aid we have given Africa has done f**k all. Emergency relief apart I suppose. While Singapore has done nicely.

Giving money can and does cause more problems than it solves. Not all the time but often enough. That some people here are sticking their heads in the sand and refusing to recognise that reality doesn’t change it.

38. Jim – “Why is it that EVERY solution to EVERY problem is the same? Cut wages, terms and conditions of the poorest in society? You name it the Tory answer is ‘lower wages’, ‘lower spending’, ‘lower benefits’ cut the taxes that hurt the rich, raise taxes that hurt the poor.”

The point of lower spending is to enable us to lower taxes. Can you please explain to me what is the sense is taxing the poor and then giving them their money back in benefits? Wouldn’t it be better to lift about 50% of the population out of the income tax system altogether and leave them to spend their own money the way they like?

The only solution to unemployment is to cut effective wages. I am sorry you don’t like it, but like everything else wages are subject to supply and demand. We have a lot of unemployed people. Thus wages are too high. We can do that in a variety of ways, such as topping up wages, but it has to be done. Which is better – that people work or they rot on the dole?

“Who else, but a Tory would advocate that a good way to get people back into work would be to provide the private sector with an unlimited supply of ‘free labour’?”

It is not free and it is not unlimited. But, myself, I would have thought an excellent way to get people into work is to get them into work. Suppose we changed the system so no one got benefits without working. A condition for the dole would be working 30 hours a week. How would that be a bad thing?

“If the private sector have work that needs done, they will hire people to do it, if you give them labour for free they will not create the jobs they unemployed are being ‘trained’ for.”

Except at the moment they will have work that needs to be done that they cannot afford to pay anyone to do. Every business could put on someone new. If wages were lower. Thus if we add benefits to their wages, those business men will employ them. And as the economy grows, wages will grow, and we will all be better off. Explain the downside to me.

“How can everyone in a Political Party get ‘Global Warming’ wrong?”

I don’t know. It sounds reasonable. We can’t go on putting CO2 into the atmosphere. And yet they got it wrong. MMGW does not exist.

“So who refuses to believe science is more important than their ideology?”

The warmists?

Can we just all quit moaning and have a civil war already? Get the fucking Tories out of the Commons.

@44 I suppose working tax credits were a good start in that direction. Three cheers for Gordon Brown!

@SMFS #44:

“I don’t know. It sounds reasonable. We can’t go on putting CO2 into the atmosphere. And yet they got it wrong. MMGW does not exist.”

Really? I’ve got pretty much the entirety of the scientific literature since Arrhenius in the 19th century saying it does; what have you got?

46. Cylux – “I suppose working tax credits were a good start in that direction. Three cheers for Gordon Brown!”

Yeah. Hard to imagine really. I would like to see all welfare, or most welfare, bundled up in the tax system as a tax credit or something like it. So income tax could start from the first penny earnt, but everyone would have a tax credit they could claim for themselves and any children. If the tax credit was more than their income, the government would PAYE them.

Or of course they could simply mail everyone a cheque for a certain amount. If people wanted to work, they could work. If not, they wouldn’t. No one would starve. And there would be no incentive not to work.

47. Robin Levett – “Really? I’ve got pretty much the entirety of the scientific literature since Arrhenius in the 19th century saying it does; what have you got?”

No you do not. Even Arrhenius says it is possible it will happen. Not that it was. What you have is other people saying their findings are consistent with MMGW. Or at least they were until the planet stopped warming. We have no evidence of MMGW except models. Which are useless.

@SMFS #48:

“No you do not. Even Arrhenius says it is possible it will happen. Not that it was. What you have is other people saying their findings are consistent with MMGW.”

No. The science since Arrhenius says that if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, the global average temperature will increase both through the direct effect of CO2 and through feedback effects. Observations reported in the literature show that we have added CO2 to the atmosphere in considerable quantity. Observations reported in the literature also show that the global average temperature has increased.

“Or at least they were until the planet stopped warming.”

When did that happen?

“We have no evidence of MMGW except models.”

See above; by “models” you presumably mean observations and experimentation.

“[Models] are useless.”

You don’t fly? Or use modern bridges?

49. Robin Levett – “No. The science since Arrhenius says that if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, the global average temperature will increase both through the direct effect of CO2 and through feedback effects. Observations reported in the literature show that we have added CO2 to the atmosphere in considerable quantity. Observations reported in the literature also show that the global average temperature has increased.”

No it does not. Arrhenius did not carry out any such experiments. His views were conjecture. The real world is vastly more complex than the laboratory. What is more, we have no idea what feedback effects there are or if they are positive or not. That is entirely conjecture. It is simply assumed. We know that we have added CO2 to the atmosphere, although there are problems with that. We know, for instance, about half of it is removed every year although we do not know how or to where. I also think there are problems with Keeling’s work. We have no evidence of increased global temperatures except from the mid-1970s when real records began to about 1998. Even if true, that is too short to be of any particular use.

“When did that happen?”

About 1998.

“by “models” you presumably mean observations and experimentation.”

No. I mean mathematical models of the climate.

“You don’t fly? Or use modern bridges?”

I fly. If you knew anything about flying and aerodynamics you would see why the models are useless. We cannot solve the problem of air flow over wings. We have to approximate it. Which is why wind tunnels are still so well used. We have to test that our mathematical solutions match reality. Now if we cannot do that for a wing, how do you expect to do it for the entire planet over several decades? Bridges are vastly more easy. We can and do solve the mathematics that describes how they should work. So I use modern bridges.

@50 I didn’t realise you were a fellow aeronautical engineer. Did you do the supplemental course at cranfield as well? Taking notes at 2-3g’s was quite interesting let me tell ya.

Falo @ 42

Unpleasant? Really? Am I so unpleasant that I could target abuse at single mothers, the poor, the unemployed or the low paid and redeem myself? I could be just like you and stick the boot into those with least in society and thus, cease to be ‘unpleasant.’ Sorry mate, I cannot imagine joining the massed ranks of the sociopaths in the Tory Party.

Robin Levett @ 47

The point about SMFS is not that he is confused about the science, or has failed to read a few of the key papers.

He, like the majority of Tories are opposed to the science, not because there they think they have spotted a flaw in the science, they have spotted that the science clashes with their warped ideology. There is simply no point in engaging these people with a rational debate, because they are ideological zealots. Not just on Climate Change, on everything. They start of with prejudices and then try to fit whatever problem comes along. They are not ‘nice but misguided’ or ‘heart in the right place’ nor do they ‘want the same as us, but differ on how to achieve that’, they are nasty scum.

What you need to remember when you read a Tory is they will even argue with science, when it clashes with their ideology. It doesn’t matter what they think about ‘pensions’, ‘unemployment’, the ‘NHS’, ‘immigration’, ‘wages’ or any other subject, they never do the research, they just find the appropriate prejudice from the recesses of their sad little minds and then staple the two together. Read what this character says above, now read it knowing this prick has rejected two hundred years of science. Is it possible that his conclusions are flawed?

If he cannot manage to get Global Warming correct, what chance has he got with ‘unemployment’?

Chaise @ 32

Read SMFS’ effort here and tell me you find him and his ilk ‘pleasant’. You keep standing up for the Tories and they keep slapping you in the face. Is it possible that you have gotten into a bit of a rut here?

This thread does provide pretty strong evidence for the old adage that “the right-wing think the left-wing are stupid; the left-wing think the right-wing are evil”.

@ 52 Jim

“Read SMFS’ effort here and tell me you find him and his ilk ‘pleasant’. You keep standing up for the Tories and they keep slapping you in the face. Is it possible that you have gotten into a bit of a rut here?”

Two things here.

Firstly, even if you genuinely do think someone is fundamentally unpleasant, telling them so is unhelpful, at least as a first resort. If you think it’s your job to do nothing but insult your enemies, and they feel the same, then you haven’t got a conversation, you’ve got a pointless screaming match. If you feel that way and they don’t, you’ll come off looking worse to an undecided reader (and that shouldn’t change how they’ll assess the validity of your arguments, but it will) and shoot yourself in the foot. Assuming you want to convince people, which I think you do.

Secondly, it’s important to remember that almost nobody actually thinks they’re evil. Nobody thinks “Why should I lie about global warming / take money from the poor / shaft the disabled? Because I’m EVIL! Bwa ha ha!” People cast themselves as the heroes in their own lives and therefore tend to think they’re in the right. In some cases, e.g. climate change deniers, intelligent design advocates and so on, they’ve successfully lied to themselves or been lied to. In others, such as the socialist/libertarian thing, it’s a genuine clash of value and it takes a judgment call to decide which is “right”. I ended up on the same side as you, but that doesn’t mean I hate everyone on the other side. I can understand the reasoning process that got them there.

Sorry if this sounds sanctimonious. I have to regularly stop myself from posting things like “you are a fucking idiot”, and every so often I lose my temper entirely and make a hypocrite of myself. I also tend towards the sarky and am happy to bait trolls like BlueRock who really do have nothing to give to the conversation except bile. But slagging matches should, at the very least, be the exception not the rule.

52. Jim – “Am I so unpleasant that I could target abuse at single mothers, the poor, the unemployed or the low paid and redeem myself?”

Where has anyone abused single mothers et al?

“He, like the majority of Tories are opposed to the science, not because there they think they have spotted a flaw in the science, they have spotted that the science clashes with their warped ideology. There is simply no point in engaging these people with a rational debate, because they are ideological zealots.”

Jim, the way to deal with people who challenge your comfort zone is by reasoned debate. It is not to refuse to do so or even worse to, as you are doing here, pull the sheets up and pretend that the nasty Tories aren’t there.

I was opposed to Global Warming back when it was a gleam in Jim Hansen’s eye. When my politics were considerably to the left of where they are now. Because it is bad science. Which it will remain no matter what my politics are or become. Now perhaps you might like to actually engage with an argument instead of smearing other people?

“Read what this character says above, now read it knowing this prick has rejected two hundred years of science. Is it possible that his conclusions are flawed?”

Well it is not two hundred years of science. Remember they were predicting global cooling back in the 1970s.

“Read SMFS’ effort here and tell me you find him and his ilk ‘pleasant’. You keep standing up for the Tories and they keep slapping you in the face. Is it possible that you have gotten into a bit of a rut here?”

I am not a Tory. Never have been. And whether I am pleasant or not is utterly irrelevant. What matters is if I am right. Given you are refusing to even discuss the issues and insist on smearing anyone who disagrees with you, I am inclined to assume you know I am right as well.

Chaise @ 55

They might not ‘think of themselves as ‘evil’, but that should not stop people from drawing their own conclusions. To be absolutely honest here, I fully accept that describing someone as ‘evil’ is purely subjective. However, I personally have stopped giving people the doubt to people who constantly show themselves up.

At what point do we stop saying that people are ‘misguided’ and start to question their motivations? At what point does the Climate Change sceptic become a denier in order to preserve their own lifestyle? When does the Holocaust denier cease to be an historian?

If we see homophobic or racist remarks here or anywhere else, they are deleted and/or condemned, yet people like the above can make the most outragous comments regarding the unemployed, but for reason, these views, equally unpleasant in my view (if no-one else’s) go completely unchallenged. This remarks are simply ‘misguided’.

All I have done is o point out that people who think rumminging through waste tips counts as ‘employment’ are a pretty nasty bunch of peole.

56. Jim – “At what point does the Climate Change sceptic become a denier in order to preserve their own lifestyle? When does the Holocaust denier cease to be an historian?”

Funny, but I would think people who bring the tactics of the NVKD to a scientific debate are the ones that should not be tolerated. In an entirely mockery-based manner of course.

“yet people like the above can make the most outragous comments regarding the unemployed, but for reason, these views, equally unpleasant in my view (if no-one else’s) go completely unchallenged. This remarks are simply ‘misguided’.”

What views are these?

“All I have done is o point out that people who think rumminging through waste tips counts as ‘employment’ are a pretty nasty bunch of peole.”

And yet people who are paid to rummage through rubbish dumps are actually employed. You may not like their work, I certainly don’t, but work it is. If you do not like reality I would politely suggest it is not my fault.

“MMGW does not exist.”

There you have it. 95% of global scientists wrong. Blow-hard right-wing blog commentators, End Time Christian Fundamentalists and oil companies clearly right.

What’t it like being you? Bit hectic?

58. Arthur Seaton – “There you have it. 95% of global scientists wrong. Blow-hard right-wing blog commentators, End Time Christian Fundamentalists and oil companies clearly right.”

Except it is not 95% of global scientists. Not even close. Nor does it matter. Science is not decided by consensus. Nor is it decided by heresy hunting and these sort of Stalinist tactics aimed at shutting people up. If you had the science to back your position, you would not need to use them.

“What’t it like being you? Bit hectic?”

Not as much as you might think.

“We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had much.” (John Kenneth Galbraith)

Generous benefits don’t seem to be creating too many problems in Scandinavia, now, do they?

Same old Tories.

In its way, it’s reassuring to see that IDS is consistently applying Biblical principles:

For unto every one that hath shall be given , and he shall have abundance : but from him that hathnot shall be taken away even that which he hath. Matthew 25:29
http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/matthew/25-29.html

@ 56 Jim

“At what point do we stop saying that people are ‘misguided’ and start to question their motivations? At what point does the Climate Change sceptic become a denier in order to preserve their own lifestyle? When does the Holocaust denier cease to be an historian?”

Precisely when they abandon evidence, I think. Although that’s not actually as precise as I’d like it to be: there’s evidence, and there’s evidence.

“If we see homophobic or racist remarks here or anywhere else, they are deleted and/or condemned, yet people like the above can make the most outragous comments regarding the unemployed, but for reason, these views, equally unpleasant in my view (if no-one else’s) go completely unchallenged. This remarks are simply ‘misguided’.”

They don’t go unchallenged, they just go undeleted.

This forum would be pointless (not to mention boring) if everyone whose views “offended” Sunny (or whoever) found their posts being deleted. I can think of few things duller than a bunch of people all contratulating each other for believing the same thing. I’ve seen sites die that way, in fact. And cutting off people with views you find offensive doesn’t mean you’ve dealt with them, you’ve just put your hands over your eyes.

I actually think Sunny is too quick to delete bigoted comments (though I wouldn’t call him a particularly trigger-happy mod in general). If someone is ranting about “fuckin queers” or whatever then we could probably do without their input, but if someone believes that homosexuality is wrong, we should engage with their views rather thank kick them out on charges of bigotry.

“All I have done is o point out that people who think rumminging through waste tips counts as ‘employment’ are a pretty nasty bunch of peole.”

Which is fine, but I don’t think it’s helpful. I’m not demanding that you change your approach, btw – I’m responding to a comment you addressed to me, and that comment was an answer to a couple of questions by another poster. Each to his own lights.

@SMFS:

Two very quick comments now – I had to leave for work after the last comment, and am now on (short) break.

“[the planet stopped warming] about 1998″. (#

The science doesn’t predict monotonic increases in global temperature, both because there is weather, and because there are cyclic events that in the short term have greater effects on global temperature than the effects of AGW. 1998 was the year of a very strong El Nino and was, at that date, the hottest on record. 1998 now ties, however, with 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009 as second warmest on record, behind 2005. The idea that the planet stopped warming in 1998 is just wrong.

(See: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/2009-temperatures-by-jim-hansen/#more-2743)

“Well it is not two hundred years of science. Remember they were predicting global cooling back in the 1970s.”

No, they weren’t. I was around then, learning physics at school and a member of BAYS. Nigel Calder (then editor of the New Scientist, now a denier prominently showcased as such in TGGWS), for example, made the claim then that global cooling was coming, but he was as wrong then as he is now. Produce me something from the scientific literature of the period and I may listen; but others have done the research and found to the contrary.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

62/Chaise: If someone is ranting about “fuckin queers” or whatever then we could probably do without their input, but if someone believes that homosexuality is wrong, we should engage with their views rather thank kick them out on charges of bigotry.

I think the problem with that is that it means that people who “rant” get kicked out, while people who can sound “reasonable” and express their bigotry in a “proper” fashion get to stay.

It also makes for a rather uncomfortable environment for everyone else if you’re expected to civilly debate with someone who is calmly and “reasonably” saying that either you or your friends should be dead/imprisoned/persecuted.

This forum would be pointless (not to mention boring) if everyone whose views “offended” Sunny (or whoever) found their posts being deleted.

Though, (not really) paradoxically, it’s easier to have constructive disagreement if destructive disagreement does earn you a banning.

For instance there’s a lot of reasonable discussion that could be had on how to deal with class inequalities, problems in the welfare system, etc. I doubt I agree with Sunny or a lot of the Lib Con regulars on much of it, in fact, but I think we could have a reasonably productive conversation about it.

It would be a far less productive conversation if we kept having to turn away from it to challenge (and so not leave unchallenged) someone who kept – civilly, academically, and reasonably – saying that “the poor” should all be sterilised or shot. Just say that “shooting all the poor and leaving them to die” is outside the scope of discussion, and moderate it out.

(Incidentally, this is not a criticism of Sunny’s moderation – I understand that he wants to make it an “almost everything is on-topic everywhere” set of comment threads, and that’s his site – his choice. He presumably knows the advantages and disadvantages of that approach well enough by now)

@ 64 cim

“I think the problem with that is that it means that people who “rant” get kicked out, while people who can sound “reasonable” and express their bigotry in a “proper” fashion get to stay.

It also makes for a rather uncomfortable environment for everyone else if you’re expected to civilly debate with someone who is calmly and “reasonably” saying that either you or your friends should be dead/imprisoned/persecuted.”

I think this is similar to the issue over whether people have to right not to be offended. If someone is actually involving themselves in the conversation, surely it makes more sense to address their points rather than kick them out (which achieves nothing except to make them feel like a martyr to free speech), even if they make your skin crawl?

“Though, (not really) paradoxically, it’s easier to have constructive disagreement if destructive disagreement does earn you a banning.”

Which sounds very similar to the idea of letting polite bigots say their piece. Otherwise “destructive disagreement” ends up being defined as “a point that the mod can’t think of an answer to”. Someone claiming that gays are inferior, for example, won’t have any points like that to make in the first place, but it can spill over into factual debates. I’ve seen how Sunny deals with comments he dislikes: insults and cries of “you’re derailing the thread!” Which sounds like a justification for accusing someone of destructive disagreement to me.

“For instance there’s a lot of reasonable discussion that could be had on how to deal with class inequalities, problems in the welfare system, etc. I doubt I agree with Sunny or a lot of the Lib Con regulars on much of it, in fact, but I think we could have a reasonably productive conversation about it.

It would be a far less productive conversation if we kept having to turn away from it to challenge (and so not leave unchallenged) someone who kept – civilly, academically, and reasonably – saying that “the poor” should all be sterilised or shot. Just say that “shooting all the poor and leaving them to die” is outside the scope of discussion, and moderate it out.”

OK, but then you’ve got to set those ground rules every time, surely? Otherwise posts will be declared “destructive” after the fact and deleted, which makes it look like the mod can’t handle criticism, and is annoying not only to the poster but anyone else talking to him. It can be hard enough to distinguish between “abuse” and “constructive criticism”, let along helpful and unhelpful contributions, especially if the allegedly unhelpful contribution makes an argument that the mod disagrees with. Human nature – I’d know I’d be exactly the same way about it.

65/Chaise: “OK, but then you’ve got to set those ground rules every time, surely?”

Well, most of them can probably be set out in a generic commenting policy. Certainly, reinforcing that particular things are off-topic for discussion as notes in individual posts is also necessary.

It’s a comment moderation model which is far more time-intensive, far harder to get right, and in my opinion far more effective when it is done properly. I fully agree that if it’s implemented badly, it has all the downsides and problems you describe.

“(which achieves nothing except to make them feel like a martyr to free speech)”

Arguably it also makes space for everyone else to have whatever the original conversation was about. (The sewing machine advocate did complain about free speech after the local knitting club threw them out, but it did save a fifteen minute argument at the start of every meeting over whether knitting needles were a good technology)

I think the problem is that it’s very easy for deliberate trolls to go for a “reasonable” approach that makes them very difficult to tell apart from someone who’s genuinely unsure and could be convinced. And it’s far more effort to honestly rebut wild claims than it is to make them in the first place.

So you can end up with the comments threads basically overrun with trolls and not much use for conversation, even with the genuinely unsure people you could talk to.

Which sounds very similar to the idea of letting polite bigots say their
piece.

Perhaps I picked the wrong words. “Constructive” and “destructive” – in my terms above – aren’t about tone but about context. And exactly the same comment could be constructive in one place and destructive somewhere else.

So, for instance, our hypothetical person saying homosexuality is wrong would be being constructively commenting to a debate about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, but destructively commenting to a debate about whether civil partnerships are sufficient – using exactly the same words.

@ 48. So Much For Subtlety:

Your idea sounds very much like a citizen’s basic income which seems pretty sensible. Assuming that may not be practical at the moment though, a good first step would be to take all those earning less than the full time minimum wage out of income tax altogether.
———————————–

On the general abuse point; there is no real need to delete those who are foully abusive but if they are abusive it is highly indicative that they have nothing useful to say and with vanishingly few exceptions, that they have no intention a participating in any debate, (where debate is defined as more than shouting ‘HERETIC!’ at people).

@ 66 cim

Overall, I tend to agree with you. I instinctively lean towards low enforcement, you seem to lean more towards effective communication. I think it’s mainly a matter of emphasis there.

However, I do worry about how you justify outlawing certain topics. For example:

“So, for instance, our hypothetical person saying homosexuality is wrong would be being constructively commenting to a debate about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, but destructively commenting to a debate about whether civil partnerships are sufficient – using exactly the same words.”

Without including people who are against civil partnerships – the vast majority of whom, I assume, also believe that homosexuality is wrong – how can you have a proper conversation about it? You’d end up with two sides: those who think that civil partnerships are fine as they are, and those (e.g. me) who think that making an official distinction between a civil partnership and marriage is wrong. You’re missing the third part of that debate, and that skews it.

Sure, I wouldn’t try to convince someone that homosexuality isn’t wrong, or at least I wouldn’t try very hard, because if they still believe that they’re not likely to change their minds. Instead, I’d take the liberal angle and ask why they should get to dictate how other people live their lives. But for that person to express their view fully, they’d probably need to say that they thought homosexuality is wrong – in fact, someone on the other side would probably demand that they admit it!

Basically, I think this sort of thing quickly becomes an excuse to disallow other people’s supporting arguments.

Seemingly, the left prefers the carrot and the right prefers the stick. When the right looks leftwards they see the idle and feckless being rewarded with treats and money willy-nilly, and when the left look rightwards they see a bunch of cricketbat wielding thugs looking for victims to hit.

63. Robin Levett – “The science doesn’t predict monotonic increases in global temperature, both because there is weather, and because there are cyclic events that in the short term have greater effects on global temperature than the effects of AGW.”

The science *now* does not predict monotonic increases. One or two models did include consideration of things like volcanoes. But in general it is odd that we have had a decade without any warming. Keeping in mind we have now had some twelve years of non-warming out of some forty years of actual records.

“1998 was the year of a very strong El Nino and was, at that date, the hottest on record. 1998 now ties, however, with 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009 as second warmest on record, behind 2005. The idea that the planet stopped warming in 1998 is just wrong.”

Well no. What you mean is that GISS’s data, produced by that nice Dr Hansen at NASA, claims this. None of the other three main sources of climate data do. Not even East Anglia’s Unit. 1998 ties, for the data we have anyway, with 1934. Half the warmest years we have had, in so far as we have data, were in the 1930s and 1920s. The planet stopped warming in 1998. Hansen has to carefully adjust his data to get that result. Big surprise.

“No, they weren’t. I was around then, learning physics at school and a member of BAYS. Nigel Calder (then editor of the New Scientist, now a denier prominently showcased as such in TGGWS), for example, made the claim then that global cooling was coming, but he was as wrong then as he is now. Produce me something from the scientific literature of the period and I may listen; but others have done the research and found to the contrary.”

Yes they were. At least they were by the same standards you are using to claim the scientific community is behind warming. What people said then and say now is that their findings are consistent with warming or cooling. They do not say they have shown warming or cooling it taking place. So naturally you can say that the claim this finding is consistent with cooling is not a claim cooling is taking place. But you also ought to be consistent and point out that scientists now are only claiming, at best, their findings are consistent with warming and so are not supporting warming. Cooling was important enough that the first edition of James Lovelock’s book on Gaia has a section suggesting we might want to release massive amounts of CFCs to keep the planet warm.

I would keep away from a paid-for propaganda unit like Real Climate. Or at least try to balance it.

69. Cylux – “Seemingly, the left prefers the carrot and the right prefers the stick. When the right looks leftwards they see the idle and feckless being rewarded with treats and money willy-nilly, and when the left look rightwards they see a bunch of cricketbat wielding thugs looking for victims to hit.”

I doubt that anyone could argue Conservatives don’t like carrots. I think it is more plausible to say that the Left wishes to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions while the Right thinks people ought to enjoy the rewards of their own actions.

Or more simply, the Left is made up of people who do not have a lot of money or access to women. The Right is made up of people who have both. The Left wishes to use violence, usually mediated by the State, to take as much of both as possible from those that have. The Right wishes to keep what it has now. It is a civil debate between a mugger and his victim – which is why the Left has to spend so much time vilifying the Right to justify said mugging.

63. Robin Levett – “Two very quick comments now – I had to leave for work after the last comment, and am now on (short) break.”

One more comment on the scientists who support Global Warming. I came across this today – it is not particularly relevant, but it is an interesting insight into the process you think results in a consensus. And needless to say their standards.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/the-strange-case-of-sari-kovats/

According to the document the school produced, Kovats was born in 1969 and became a part-time doctoral student in 2001. In an e-mail to her I mentioned that the public record indicates her first paper was published in 1997. She did not dispute this.

June 2010 was a memorable month for Kovats. Not only did she finally complete her PhD, but the IPCC announced the authors of the forthcoming version of the climate bible, expected in 2013. Quelle surprise, Kovats has received another promotion. This time she isn’t merely a lead author, she’s a coordinating lead author – the most senior of IPCC author roles.

Are you still holding the IPCC process up as a gold standard? Precisely why should we believe these clowns?

@71 Thank you for supplying that misogynistic response.

@SMFS:

“The science *now* does not predict monotonic increases.”

Never did. Show me a paper that does so.

“But in general it is odd that we have had a decade without any warming. Keeping in mind we have now had some twelve years of non-warming out of some forty years of actual records.”

Untrue. Show me a paper that suggest you are correct.

“1998 ties, for the data we have anyway, with 1934.”

Oh dear. Oh, dear. You are aware that we are talking about global average temperatures, aren’t you? Not the lower 48 states of the USA? Globally, 1934 is (was?) 47th hottest on record. Show me a paper that says otherwise.

“What you mean is that GISS’s data, produced by that nice Dr Hansen at NASA, claims this. None of the other three main sources of climate data do. Not even East Anglia’s Unit.”

Not true either. Where are you getting this from? Please address the data and arguments in the reference I gave you. Ad hominem is so last year.

Perhaps you could try reading the references to the primary literature in:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

“Yes they were. At least they were by the same standards you are using to claim the scientific community is behind warming. What people said then and say now is that their findings are consistent with warming or cooling. They do not say they have shown warming or cooling it taking place. So naturally you can say that the claim this finding is consistent with cooling is not a claim cooling is taking place. But you also ought to be consistent and point out that scientists now are only claiming, at best, their findings are consistent with warming and so are not supporting warming. Cooling was important enough that the first edition of James Lovelock’s book on Gaia has a section suggesting we might want to release massive amounts of CFCs to keep the planet warm.”

I don’t remember claiming that “the scientific community is behind warming”. I said that the science supports it. I’ve seen nothing in Nature, for example, that argues to the contrary; the issues remaining are exactly how much, and relative contributions. There are uncertainties associated with the effect of clouds, for example; but those uncertainties are understood.

What is also understood is that without the so-called greenhouse effect, the surface of the Earth would be 33K cooler (that pesky Arrhenius et seq); so any argument that increases in the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere would have to explain quite why 33K is the magic number at which GHG run out of steam (as it were) and stop actually heating the atmosphere.

As for the 1970s read William Connolley’s analysis, the reference to which I gave you. Read the literature to which he refers. If you feel you can point to scientific literature making the claim you say it makes – that “people said then and say now is that their findings are consistent with warming or cooling”, then please point me to it – I’m all ears.

I’ve been looking for my copy of The Gaia Hypothesis to check your claim about it (although William Connolley deals with it in the reference I gave you). I’ll even spot you Gordon Rattray Taylor in “The Doomsday Book” – where he points out that there is literature suggesting that if we keep adding particulates to the atmosphere there will indeed be cooling – although of course we stopped dojg so. But guess what – all of this is irrelevant unless it is backed by the data and primary literature. Looking at “Peterson, Thomas C., William M. Connolley, John Fleck, 2008: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1337″, it isn’t.

“I would keep away from a paid-for propaganda unit like Real Climate. Or at least try to balance it.”

Oh, dear – again. What was I saying about ad hominem? You can’t even make good the allegation; but the issue is whether the data and arguments are good, not whether you like the contributors.

#72:

Explain what an IPCC contributing author does. Then tell me what the relevance is of the passage you quoted.

So, left-wing people don’t have “access to women”. I see. I understand this blog’s policy against personal abuse et al, but at what point does become politic to point out that SMFS is out of his sick little sociopathic mind?

75. Arthur Seaton – “So, left-wing people don’t have “access to women”. I see. I understand this blog’s policy against personal abuse et al, but at what point does become politic to point out that SMFS is out of his sick little sociopathic mind?”

You have it the other way around, people without access to women become Leftists. The problem is you do not want to see. And you especially do not want to see beyond the borders of the UK. So sure, if you’re a Little Englander it sounds odd. But we have been talking about the Arab world for weeks. Who is protesting? The young. What is driving the young protesting in the Middle East? Ask them. The cost of marriage is a big cause of discontent among the young in the Arab world. They have no access to easy sex. You think that is not actually playing a role? Or merely that it is insane to point it out?

It is often said that people are socialists when they are young, and conservatives when old. What is the difference? Well for one thing, young men date young girls. Old men are the fathers of young girls. When it comes to the virginity of the Left and the Right I think we can probably agree they have very different views. And so which side do young men tend to come down on? Again, you think that it is a co-incidence that the Left tends to encourage young people to have sex and the Right does not? Or just that it is sociopathic to point it out?

74. Robin Levett – “Never did. Show me a paper that does so.”

Well the IPCC’s AR4 report for one. Notice that even Hansen’s presentation to Congress, which did consider non-monotonically increasing temperatures, only did so for volcanoes. We have not had a big one recently.

“Untrue. Show me a paper that suggest you are correct.”

Correct about what? You don’t need a paper – you can go see the data yourself. Try this article with its explanation but go and check the Hadley centre’s data too.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/15/hadley-climate-center-hadat2-data-shows-global-cooling-in-the-last-year/

“Oh dear. Oh, dear. You are aware that we are talking about global average temperatures, aren’t you? Not the lower 48 states of the USA? Globally, 1934 is (was?) 47th hottest on record. Show me a paper that says otherwise.”

As I said, for the data we have. Which would be the US. We don’t have any particularly good data for the world from before the 1970s when the first satellites went up. So no, 1934 was not the 47th hottest on record. You mean James Hansen has very carefully reconstructed the data for the rest of the world and he thinks it is the 47th hottest year.

“Not true either. Where are you getting this from? Please address the data and arguments in the reference I gave you. Ad hominem is so last year.”

Sorry but it is true and denying what the data says will just make you look stupid. It is not an ad hominem to point out what everyone knows – the data from GISS stands out as unusual compared even to other Climate units.

“Perhaps you could try reading the references to the primary literature in”

Come on. This is childishly naive. Notice what they do:

“This analysis is performed in An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice.”

So the atmosphere is not warming. So they cheat and count the seas as well. The oceans are a lagging indicator. They take longer to heat and are slower to cool. So obviously they will, dare I say it, hide the decline. But 1998 would have been a very different year if it had been counted this way too.

“I don’t remember claiming that “the scientific community is behind warming”. I said that the science supports it.”

And yet it doesn’t. There is no evidence that would justify being sure.

“I’ve seen nothing in Nature, for example, that argues to the contrary”

Yeah but it is trivially easy to see they have moved into advocacy – they do not publish anyone who lowers their estimates either. First estimates of anything will always been inaccurate. They will be too high and too low. Over time the science ought to get better and so there will be a narrowing. Nature should be publishing as many papers saying estimates are too high as they do saying they are too low. Even if they continue to saying warming is happening. They don’t. They do not publish any.

“There are uncertainties associated with the effect of clouds, for example; but those uncertainties are understood.”

Sorry but that is nonsense. Clouds are a key issue. If more cloud means more light is reflected back into space than is trapped, the world cools with more cloud cover. If clouds trap more heat than they reflect, then the world warms. We do not have a clue which clouds do – although the evidence of 9-11 seems to be that clouds cool the planet. Thus no positive feedback and hence no runaway warming. You see why this is such a big deal.

“What is also understood is that without the so-called greenhouse effect, the surface of the Earth would be 33K cooler (that pesky Arrhenius et seq); so any argument that increases in the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere would have to explain quite why 33K is the magic number at which GHG run out of steam (as it were) and stop actually heating the atmosphere.”

Actually no. It is more complex than that. I agree the greenhouse effect keeps the planet warmer. But we do not know what feedbacks there will be. The warmist camp depends on them being, on the whole, positive. We do not know if that is true. We cannot even be entirely sure that the existing CO2 we have already is blocking all the heat it can block and so saturating the atmosphere will have no further effect. We simply do not have enough data to make any good predictions. Let’s suppose that releasing all the CO2 we are likely to release will cause the planet to warm by some 1.5 C. So what? Why is that bad?

“where he points out that there is literature suggesting that if we keep adding particulates to the atmosphere there will indeed be cooling – although of course we stopped dojg so.”

In the West. Not in the world as a whole. Look at India or China.

“Oh, dear – again. What was I saying about ad hominem?”

It is not an ad hominem. That word does not mean what you think it does. Look it up.

“You can’t even make good the allegation; but the issue is whether the data and arguments are good, not whether you like the contributors.”

Why not? The funding of that site is not a secret. Who they work for is not a secret. Its aims are not a secret. It is what it is. And it is what I said it is.

“Explain what an IPCC contributing author does. Then tell me what the relevance is of the passage you quoted.”

If you don’t know this stop wasting my time.

@SMFS #77|:

Some quick comments – going out:

““Explain what an IPCC contributing author does. Then tell me what the relevance is of the passage you quoted.”

If you don’t know this stop wasting my time.”

The thing is, I do know what a contributing author does. The fact that you think that the passage you quoted has any relevance strongly suggests that that you don’t. So explain the relevance of the passage.

“The science *now* does not predict monotonic increases.”

and

“Well the IPCC’s AR4 report for one.”

Neither the science (nor AR4) ever has. If either did, you can show me. Do you even know what “monotonic” means?

“Actually no. It is more complex than that. I agree the greenhouse effect keeps the planet warmer. But we do not know what feedbacks there will be. The warmist camp depends on them being, on the whole, positive. We do not know if that is true. We cannot even be entirely sure that the existing CO2 we have already is blocking all the heat it can block and so saturating the atmosphere will have no further effect. We simply do not have enough data to make any good predictions.”

Feedbacks *have* to be positive for us to be 33K warmer with than without an atmosphere – at least up to 33K warming. If they weren’t, then we wouldn’t be 33K warmer (unless, of course, you suggest that CO” is responsible for all of that warming – in which case we have a whole ‘nuther problem). The challenge for the denialists is to show why they stop being positive at or about current global temperatures.

As for saturation – yes, we can be sure. Experiments again, and basic physics.

“As I said, for the data we have. Which would be the US. We don’t have any particularly good data for the world from before the 1970s when the first satellites went up.”

The US is not the entirety of the data available back to 1934. But: Read this back to yourself. Bear in mind that the USA is 2% of the Earth’s surface area. Then consider the criticism that WUWT makes of the GISS data in relation to the Arctic.

Are. You. Serious?

@76

It is often said that people are socialists when they are young, and conservatives when old.

It’s also said that you get more flies with honey than vinegar, but that statement isn’t true either. I’ve watched a pot too – guess what – it boiled.

@SMFS #77:

Another short comment.

“Correct about what? You don’t need a paper – you can go see the data yourself. Try this article with its explanation but go and check the Hadley centre’s data too.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/15/hadley-climate-center-hadat2-data-shows-global-cooling-in-the-last-year/”

This is the proposition you are trying to defend with the link above:

“But in general it is odd that we have had a decade without any warming. Keeping in mind we have now had some twelve years of non-warming out of some forty years of actual records.”

Your link claims cooling in the year to June 2008. It acknowledges a long term warming trend. It says nothing about short term trends from 1998 onward – indeed could say nothing about global average temperature over the last 3 years.

More generally, this is not HadCRUT data. It is HadAT radiosonde data.

Where are ‘New Generation Labour in all this, are they opposing these obscenities? People will end up in penury, going to loan sharks or in some cases prison as they seek ways to make ends meet. We don’t have a ‘generous’ welfare system in this country despite what the misathropes on here say, the Social Fund was itself a replacement for grants for essential items, and its going to get worse

Find some backbone labour…

INTELLIGENT FINANCE LOAN FIRM
HEAD OFFICE——–The Mound, Edinburgh, EH1 1YZ, United Kingdom.
EMAIL ADDRESS——intelligentfinanceloanfirm@gmail.com
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
You are welcomed to INTELLIGENT FINANCE LOAN FINANCE FIRM ,our obligation is
helping the needy to gain financial stability in order to meet with
the demands of living.
And helping those who are in financial crises.

We give out loans from the range of $1,000 to $90,000,000.Our loans
are well insured and maximum security is our priority,at an interest
of 1.2% rate.

We give out our Loan in USD($) and GBP(£) and any currency of your choice.

Available Loans we offer are,
* Personal Loans (Secure and Unsecured)
* Business Loans (Secure and Unsecured)
* Combination Loan
* Consolidation Loan And Many More:
* International Loans
* Investors Loans

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

* Are you financially Squeezed?
* Do you seek funds to pay off credits and debts
* Do you seek finance to set up your own business?
* Are you in need of private or business loans for various purposes?
* Do you seek loans to carry out large projects
* Do you seek funding for various other
if you need loan you can contact us via our email
address—–[intelligentfinanceloanfirm@gmail.com]

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Get affordable Loan from INTELLIGENT FINANCE LOAN FIRM.

LOAN BENEFIT
*Available 24hours/7days
*Loan is offer to individual/corporate worldwide
*No Collateral Required.
*Interest Rate of 1.3%.
*Loan Amount: $1000 USD and above.
*Loan Repayment Schedule Start Six months after.
*Loan Repayment Grace Period of Six months.
*Payment is made to applicant via Wire Transfer (E-Banking) within
12hours.,bank accout30 minutes, to bank account, western union or
money gram is 15 minutes, via cheaque.

INTELLIGENT FINANCE LOAN FIRM is located in The Mound, Edinburgh,
EH1 1YZ, United Kingdom and or registration number is SC327000

THANKS
PETER WILLIAMS

CAN YOU BELIEVE IT.
MY NAME IS SANDRA WILLIAMS from CANADA,my family is very happy today ,
because i was able to get a reliable loan of $300 000usd from CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF ST MARIE LOAN FUNDING FIRM .
i was in need of a loan and have been scam five times by online scammers , till a friend of mine directed me to
CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF ST MARIE LOAN FUNDING FIRM, i then decided to seek for a loan from them, to my greatest surprise,
my loan was approved and granted without any form of credit check,no collateral,
no cosigner and with just 1.2% interest rate.
i will advise everyone out there that need a loan to contact them via this CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF ST MARIE LOAN FUNDING FIRM
here is their email—-[cathedralchruchloansetup@gmail.com] and help me to thank REV JOHN RAWSTHORNE,C.E.O of the loan firm.
He is a GOD SENT.